Harmony is a key factor to biblical interpretation. We must put biblical passages in harmony as nothing contradictory must ensue from what is religiously truth. Aside from harmony, logic and context are an integral part of biblical interpretation. Therefore, for a reliable conclusion to be achievable these key factors must be present to solidify ones stand.

So for the question: how could jesus be the creator when god is the only creator?

Actually, when saying god is the only creator is a presupposition. Its presumptive. Here is their reference:

Isaiah 44:24
[24]Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Without context it would mean god is the only creator, but we know that such approach is stupid. The bible is made up of multiple verses so to single out one passage and make immediate conclusion is outward stupidity. We need to utilize logic and context and find a harmonious relationship between passages. But before that let us examine if the concept that only god is the creator is strong enough as proposition.

I have to ask: Is it in general terms that god is the only creator?


Does it imply a being only one in specific terms,

Such as an only creator as the source of all things

While jesus is creator by being an instrument?

As i said, we may have to apply context and logic as implied:

Ecclesiastes 7:27
[27]Behold, this have I found, saith the preacher, counting one by one, to find out the account:

Counting one by one is contextual. You consider all necessary verses one by one meaning it refers to context. To find out the account refers to conclusion by logical assessment. Therefore, we need logic and context. And for context, can we read that jesus is a creator?

Absolutely. Here is the texts:

Hebrews 1:8-10
[8]But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
[9]Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
[10]And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

How is jesus a creator? By being an instrument of god implied by the usage of the preposition through.

John 1:1-3
[1]In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[2]The same was in the beginning with God.
[3]All things were made through him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Colossians 1:15-16
[15]Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
[16]For through him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created through him, and for him:

Therefore, by employing context we could see how jesus was a creator by being an instrument of god in creating everything. Logic then should harmonize how these verses were in relation to one another.

And by asking: Is it in general terms that god is the only creator? It should open possibilities than how at face value it was projected. The lack of any confirmatory answer to the question, would negate the idea of an only creator in general aspect and seeing jesus as a creator arises other direction for interpretation.

So is god the only creator with regards to a general scope meaning, of all living being, is he the only creator?

This question was answered. Jesus too is a creator. Therefore, by applying logic we come to different hypothesis how god is the only creator when jesus too is a creator, and the logical approach provided one:

God is the only creator by being the source of all things while jesus is a creator by being an instrument of god.

That is the logical conclusion as harmony between these apparently contradictory passages. This logical approach was opened up bec of the lack of resolution to the question: Is god an only creator in general terms?

There was no mention of such general terms in the verse thus necessitates a logical approach.



Many manuscripts in archaeological find have emerged as our primary source of faith. And it was said by scholars that no two manuscripts are in essence the same. Meaning, in multiple manuscripts bearing the same verse, it would be fairly deduced that no two same verse are alike in content. This reflects the reality that discrepancies were part of the copying procedure and as with the transmission, only one verse from multiple manuscript for every verse was deemed correct. This is the case for John 1:18.

Reality was exposed how two passages were entailed in this verse as follows:

Monogenes theos


Monogenes huios

Or if translated in english are the only begotten god and the only begotten son respectively.

Which one of these could be correct is a matter of dissenting view among scholars. It was irresolute how to construe a verifiable choice with these. It cannot therefore be resolved which of these is correct by simply, basing on scholars’ view.

So, if it remains that way, should we say that regarding the true deity of christ it is irresolute?

So either of the two could be correct.

If it is monogenes theos then as it is not biblically contradictory to any passage provided it is subjected to objective assessment as we do, then it proclaims jesus as true god.

Monogenes theos or only begotten god referring to jesus confirms john 1:1 the word was god so being in absolute terms the same god (john 1:18 the only begotten god and john 1:1 the word was god) then jesus must be the true god for having preexisted with god in the beginning as it say in john 1:2:

…the same was in the beginning with god…

Therefore, irrectifiably true, then jesus cannot be merely human. He has a god component which basically is a true god. And for saying it is irrectifiably true, then that first must be proven. How?

We may have to utilize an aramaic peshitta bible through Lamsa version in Rom 9:5 saying:

…Christ…who is god over all…

This could be questioned in matters of objection but not on its merit as authentic scripture. How could it be an authentic scripture? For the mere fact that nothing disproves it and for being non-contradictory to any biblical passage. Therefore validating john 1:18’s monogenes theos, we have a guarantee how Jesus is truly god.

But then there are objections such as this:

This half verse has been the center of interminable controversy. The issue appears from a comparison of our two English texts. Is God over all, be blessed forever (or the one who is over all, God blessed forever) a phrase in apposition with “Christ” and belonging in the same sentence as the rest of vs.5 (so the KJV and the RSV mg.), or is this phrase grammatically separate, a doxology to God at the end of the recital of the privileges of Israel (so the RSV and most modern translators?) The question cannot be answered on the basis of Greek since it is a matter almost entirely punctuation and Greek MSS in the early period were not punctuated.” “…but the choice is probably to be made between the KJV and the RSV translations. The majority of modern commentators favor the latter because of the unlikehood of Paul’s having here referred to Christ as ‘God’. (The Interpreter’s bible, vol. 9 p.540)

The thing is, this is subjective view considering other views on the matter, therefore Lamsa’s Rom 9:5 cannot be disproven considering a better logical approach as i tried to debunk the notion of a single god.

Read here for that:

Please continue reading by opening the link above. Its a short blog as supplemental to disprove the objection that Rom 9:5 in Lamsa contradicted what Paul has written in other verses.

But for john 1:18 and rom 9:5 heralding christ as true god, we might as well take into consideration how these two verses are problematic for its being objected and without scholars’ agreement on its message–jesus’ true deity–but simply for being in harmony and non-contradictory to biblical context, we take these as authentic scriptures.

Thank you.


What is the NCAF Dangal ng Bayan awards?

Here is an info from their site:


The Grand Tribute to Filipino World-Class Products & Achievers
Founded in 1981

Founded in 1981 by the National Consumer Affairs Foundation (NCAF) and the Dangal ng Bayan Awards Committee headed by civic leader and consumer welfare advocate Jonathan “Jake” Navea, the DANGAL NG BAYAN AWARDS (DBA), is a prestigious national tribute conferred on “WORLD-CLASS FILIPINO PRODUCTS AND ACHIEVERS” with the premier vision of motivating Filipinos to achieve excellence thru public recognition eventually contributing to nation-building and Filipino “greatness” worldwide.

For details, visit: or


The NATIONAL CONSUMER AFFAIRS FOUNDATION (NCAF) jointly with the WHO’S WHO IN THE PHILIPPINES FOUNDATION (WWPF) have been significantly recognizing the accomplishments of outstanding Filipino achievers in public service, sports, education, business and other major professional fields, who have contributed and enhanced their God-given talents and skills towards nation-building.

Thru public recognition, the project envisions to motivate the Filipinos to further excel in their chosen fields for the rest of the citizenry to emulate. Event proceeds will benefit the DAMAYAN Youth & Senior Citizens Welfare & Livelihood Program.”

It says:

is a prestigious national tribute conferred on “WORLD-CLASS FILIPINO PRODUCTS AND ACHIEVERS” with the premier vision of motivating Filipinos to achieve excellence thru public recognition eventually contributing to nation-building and Filipino “greatness” worldwide...

…to further excel in their chosen fields for the rest of the citizenry to emulate…

Does it imply that having such award makes you an exemplary figure for the Philippines? For saying these:

contributing to nation-building and Filipino “greatness” worldwide

Is it not considering Bro Eli as a great filipino and an example:

…for the rest of the citizenry to emulate…

And doesnt it imply that this award-giving body has investigated his personal life how he was profoundly criticized for his rape cases and libel cases especially from those the INC has muddled on his integrity yet despite it, reality surmounted on a higher scale how they perceived him as innocent thus awarded him with a prestigious honor?

Having these, we might as well ask the question:


Is it the INC, our rival church, who have been derogatory on bro eli’s reputation to have him accused as sodomite without any valid evidence or any confirmatory basis but simply banking on our heated rivalry?

Is it INC who muddled bro eli’s reputation through trumped-up libel cases?

Is it the judges who convicted him of at least two libel cases?


Is it the Dangal ng Bayan Award-giving body who despite his muddled integrity has yet considered him innocent by upholding him with honor as “a filipino great”?

Think about it, folks. We, on the other hand has thought on the guilty verdicts inflicted on Bro Eli as simply, judicial errors but who are you to say, how bro eli really is with regards to this conflicting reality: DANGAL NG BAYAN VS INC…???

Who has credibility?


Many pastors have unequivocally expressed the idea that after the fall of Adam, all people have sinned and for catholics, babies dont escape this universal plague–sin. How shall we view this in relation to how my faith in MCGI has taught me in manner how truly it must be viewed?

Let us see…

Romans 5:12
[12]Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

It say, by adam sin entered into the world and death, implying spiritual death has passed upon all men. Immediately, they conclude that mankind has been condemned but was it speaking conclusively that way if we are to compare it to context?

Romans 5:18
[18]Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Was it all men in general spoken of as spiritually dead or it only speaking specifically of all evil men not necessarily of mankind?

Let us consult context.

Romans 5:19
[19]For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Context is saying that when it speaks of all men it was not in general terms by invoking it as quantitively, many. Question, is many suggestive of the whole mankind?

It isnt quite rational though. So who are these all men that sinned if not speaking in general terms?

Romans 3:10-18,23
[10]As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
[11]There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
[12]They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
[13]Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
[14]Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
[15]Their feet are swift to shed blood:
[16]Destruction and misery are in their ways:
[17]And the way of peace have they not known:
[18]There is no fear of God before their eyes.
[23]For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

It say, all have sinned, noone is righteous, noone seek for god, etc… Is this the characteristic of mankind so for all men, in general to have sinned? Obviously not as there were people who were righteous like this:

Job 1:1
[1]There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

But they might postulate a counter measure by saying: show us someone outside religion who fear god, or righteous and doing good?

Logically, are there none? Let us see…

Romans 2:14-15
[14]For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
[15]Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

Clearly it say, there are gentiles who have not the law meaning they never encountered any written law of god. But by nature, they do these law, meaning, they dont do it from reading it bec they dont have the written law so they do it naturally:

…do by nature the things contained in the law…

Meaning, these law were naturally imprinted in their hearts:

…do by nature the things contained in the law…

…Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts…

So if they do these, then they are doing good as the law is good.

Romans 7:12
[12]Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

It defuncted the idea that all men have sinned, none righteous, none doing good, right? These people who have sinned are obviously all men who are not righteous.

What is their counter argument?

Ephesians 2:12
[12]That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

It say, gentiles were without christ and without hope. Therefore, they assume that outside christ during mosaic era:

…being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel…

Then gentiles are hopeless in terms of salvation. But we have to use logic and context here. Paul said, gentiles who have not the written law but acting in response to law natural in their hearts are doing good thus as per divine jurisprudence they are justified:

Romans 2:13
[13](For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Conclusively, there are gentiles outside religion that as specific on written law that do good and is justified. Therefore to say that all men in general sinned bec nobody is righteous, nobody is doing good, is wrong and out of context.

Those who have no hope are the evil ones:

…There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God…
there is none that doeth good, no, not one…

Fact is, the blind has no sin.

John 9:41
[41]Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

Therefore, to say that mankind sinned after the fall of adam to have included babies is false.

Romans 5:18
[18]Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Bec if all men in general was condemned, or sinned, does it mean all men in general is justified?

…even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life…


As far as translation is concerned, the term fareast can be found in Moffat’s Isaiah 46:11. Here is an INC testament:

“The bird of prey from the East in this prophecy is not a literal bird of prey but is the same as the man from a far country. The counsel of God is His word (ps. 107:11). Thus, the man who would come from a far country in the East or Far East will be a preacher of God’s word.

The ancient Hebrew language from which we have our translation confirms that the word east in Isaiah 46:11 is more properly translated as Far East. The Hebrew term used for the east in Isaiah 46:11 was “mizrach” and, according to a Bible dictionary, is more accurately translatted as Far East”

It was so as they say is supported by another verse:
In the same way, Isaiah 43:5 was more accurately translated by James Moffat as Far East: ” From the far east will I bring your offspring.”

It is by the logic that v.6 reiterates the object East as being far therefore deductive to the notion of fareast. They said:

“Through deeper examination of the verse, we will notice that Prophet Isaiah explicitly says “east” (v.5) and “from afar” (v.6). Now since the ones being prophesized as coming from the “east” (v.5) are the very ones referred as “from afar” (v.6).

Then it is clear that the ones being prophesized are “from afar” in the “east” or Far East.”

But could this really be how God intended these verses? Regarding “east” and “from afar” it could mean east as a far distance but not necessarily fareast. That is logical, of course.


We have to note that errors in translation is a reality by at least 2 reasons:

A. Paraphrasing

B. Inserting ones own faith

It is so as forewarned:

Any translation must change and fit the original to the new language. In addition when translating a religious text such as the Hebrew bible, translators may sometimes make certain changes to stress certain points of faith. And that might have happened in the king James version.”

Ivri Bunis, Ph.D. Candidate
Biblical Hebrew Teacher

So how could we be sure that fareast is an authentic rendition? We know that there were two hebrew term in reference to east or eastward and that is mizrach (east) and kedem (eastward) but James Moffat took mizrach and translated it as fareast but is that a correct rendition?

Let us consult reason:

William Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible has this to say :

“EAST. THE HEBREW TERM KEDEM proper means which is before or in front of a person, and was applied to the east from the custom of turning in that direction when describing the points of the compass, before, behind, the right and left representing respectively east, west, north and south (Job 23:8, 9). The term generally used refers to the land lying immediately eastward of Palestine, Arabia, Mesopotamia and Babylonia. On the other hand, MIZRACH is used of the fareast with a less-definite signification (Isa. 43:5, Isa. 46:11).” [p. 154]”

By saying, mizrach means fareast as denoted with less definite signification infers a reality that mizrach isnt certainly fareast as by the notion of being less definite as signified. It means, its less definitely fareast. Its not certainly fareast therefore we cannot be deductive of its nature and for being not certain, there is no guarantee that fareast could be correct.

A scholar though has a clarification how fareast is not adoptable as proper definition.

Having these as premise, a conclusion is definite and inevitable. Nowhere in the hebrew scripture was there any inference of any term that denotes fareast. It could only be a mistranslation and for INC to have used it is self-defeating.


Indeed. Literal as how it would be usually perceived in the future. Its not a physical shape bec god is a spirit. But a shape that would be discernible in the future.

It say:

Phil 2:6

…who being in the morphe (shape) of god…

God has a shape. How do we know its literal shape?

Bec he has a functional and literal ear.

Isaiah 59:1
[1]Behold, the LORD’S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:

A functional ear for hearing is clearly a literal ear. It has no trace of being figurative bec if we are to apply common sense a literal ear is for hearing indeed and nothing of sort has biblical indication how a functional ear is figurative therefore it clarifies how it is a literal ear. If its a literal ear then that suggests literal shape therefore god has literal shape.

God is a spirit and invisible.

1 Timothy 1:17
[17]Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Therefore its literal shape is spirit and invisible for the moment. Temporarily invisible.

Joe Ventilacion though has some objection like this one. He said:
“Inyong narinig ang tinig ngunit wala kayong nakitang anyo,”

He was quoting a verse which say:

…you has neither hear his voice nor seen his shape…

Implying, god has no visible shape suggesting god has no literal shape. How come?

Shape is visible in the categorical aspect. All shape is visible as per human terminology therefore for god to have no visible shape then he has no literal shape. But what he forget to say is how god is visible in the future.

Matthew 5:8
[8]Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

If that is not literally seeing god then how could that be when he have a literal shape? Fact is, he has a literal and functional ear. If that is the case then a literal and functional ear suggests he has a literal shape which by the moment is invisible.

…neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear…


Gaano ito katotoo? Kung mapapatunayan ko ito, handa nyo bang tanggapin na kami ang tama at mali yang iglesia niyo?

Una, me literal shape ang dios.

Phil 2:6 who being in the morphe (shape) of god…

Hinde po clarified sa bible kung itong shape e literal o figurative. Wala pong mababasa na nagsasabing ito ang paliwanag sa shape of god ng Phil 2:6. Therefore, it is by choice kung ano ito. Pinipili namin ang literal shape as supported by another verse:

Isaiah 59:1
[1]Behold, the LORD’S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:

So merong ear ang dios, singular, at itoy functional for hearing therefore literal ear ito. Ito ay supportive sa katotohanang me shape ang dios. Dahil meron siyang literal ear therefore it follows na yung shape niya as a person is likewise literal.

So meron pong literal shape ang dios. Ito poy invisible shape.

1 Timothy 1:17
[17]Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Ngayon po, paano natin nasasabing merong pwet ang dios? Dahil po siya ay nauupo. So meron siyang parte ng katawan na pangupo.

Revelation 7:10-11
[10]And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.
[11]And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God.

In human terminology, ang pangupo is simply termed pwet. Dahil nauupo ang dios so meron siyang pangupo. Paano yon? Dahil me literal shape siya. So dahil meron siyang pangupo kaya in human terminology e merong pwet ang dios.

So me pwet po ang dios. Meron ba naman siyang tuhod?

Wala po. Dahil kung meron edi ibig sabihin e luluhod din siya at sasamba kay hesus, di po ba?

Philippians 2:9-10
[9]Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
[10]That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

Sabi every knee should bow to jesus of things in heaven. Wala pong sinabing exception meaning in general terms, lahat ng merong tuhod sa panahong yon e sasambahin at luluhuran si hesus. Logically, kung me tuhod ang dios edi luluhod siya kay hesus di ba which is inappropriate dahil siya ang most high.

Hinde po luluhod ang ama kay hesus dahil nakatataas siya at si hesus ang nasa ilalim.

1 Corinthians 15:28
[28]And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Lahat ng bagay na existing e napasailalim kay hesus except ang ama.

1 Corinthians 15:27
[27]For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

Maaaring sabihin nila yan ang exception sa every knee should bow. Si hesus ay napasailalim sa kapangyarihan ng ama:

…then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him…

So kahit me tuhod siya hinde pa rin siya luluhod kay hesus dahil nasa ilalim si hesus. Pero hinde po ganon e. Wala pong direktang sinasabi na merong exception yung every knee. At pag every knee e lahat na po ng tuhod ibig sabihin.


Walang sinabing merong exception ang every knee therefore its an inevitable conclusion na walang tuhod ang dios.

Naipakita ko na po kung paanong me pwet pero walang tuhod ang dios at nakikita nyo naman na logical and sensible ito so alam nyo na na yung pagbatikos nyo sa amin tungkol dito e bunga ng kamangmangan.

Ipinost ko to sa facebook at ganito ang sagutan namin:

CAMILLE: “wala naman po issue dun sa every knee will bow, ang tanong dun sino ang magpapa-bow sa lahat ng knee sa pangalan ni Hesus. sa paliwanag nyo kasi para matupad ang nakasulat na yan kelangan nyo tanggalan ng tuhod ung dios nyo para di sya makasama sa luluhod, eh hindi naman talaga kasama ung naguutos na gagawa sa inuutos Niya. kaya nga Siya makapangyarihan sa lahat. what I’m trying to point out is kahit may tuhod ang Dios wala Siyang luluhuran na iba. Sa version nyo kasi kaya lang Siya di luluhod dahil wala Siyang tuhod. Mas may sense pa rin at mas logical ung sinasabi ko kesa sa pilit nyong pinapaniwalaan. kelangan nyo pa mag mental gymnastics para makumbinsi nyo mga sarili nyo sa paliwanag nyo. eh mapapaliwanag naman sa isang sentence “Ang naguutos na lumuhod ang lahat sa pangalan ni Hesus, hindi kasamang luluhod” kasi makapangyarihan Siya sa lahat.”

AKO: “Ang dios po e hinde luluhod kay hesus dahil siya ang supreme authority so ibig nyong sabihin kahit pa me tuhod ito e hinde talaga siya luluhod

Tama po yan pero kung icoconsider natin yung sinabing
EVERY KNEE SHOULD BOW e wala pong exception ito e lahat ng tuhod e

That makes the difference kasi dalawang tila magkakontrang verses ito
Parang sinabi ng una
At sabi ng pangalawa

so para maresolba yan kailangan iresolba yung sinabing EVERY KNEE…”

CAMILLE: “sinisimulan mo kasi bro dun sa “lahat ng tuhod luluhod” pero nagsisimula ung verse sa word na “Upang”, basahin mo din within the context. Who will cause nung pagluhod ng lahat ng tuhod kaibigan? Again it can be explained in it’s simplest form. “Ang magpapaluhod ng lahat ng tuhod sa langit at lupa ay di kasamang luluhod, Siya nga ung cause nung action eh.”

AKO: “Kahit po iconsider natin lahat ng context na hinde luluhod ang ama sa anak
Pero me kakontra po kung me tuhod ang ama
iyan po ang kakontra kung meron ding tuhod ang ama…
Ayon sa verse na ito, luluhod din ang ama kung me tuhod ito which is inappropriate. Kaya para hinde ito kokontra sa anupaman its necessary na walang tuhod ang ama.”


Below is generally laid out the references for the single god concept. Being uncertain and unspecific makes it ambiguous in that sense of objective exegesis.

You heard it right. These verses are ambiguous by themselves alone. It has no specific interpretation if we are to take it by themselves alone.

Ill show you.

Isaiah 45:21

[21]Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me a just God and a Saviour; there is no god beside me.

Isaiah 44:8

[8]Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Isaiah 46:9

[9]Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me.

These verses express one thought: there is one god and none else. The problem is, this is ambiguous. It can be explained in different ways.

These are the different ways:

  • There is one god and none else in the general scope.

Though, it was not specified to be in general scope but it could be explained this way. Fact is some group explained it this way.

  • There is one god and none else for Israel.

First, let me establish that these words are prescriptive for mosaic Israel as it say:

Hosea 13:4
[4]Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.

Exodus 34:14
[14]For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

Moreover, during those time, israel was the only nation with a true god:

2 Kings 5:15
[15]And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and came, and stood before him: and he said, Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel: now therefore, I pray thee, take a blessing of thy servant.

Therefore, when it say “beside me there is no god” or “i am god there is none else” etc…was logically for that only nation with a true god–israel–therefore prescriptive only for them.

Therefore when it say:

Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any


Beside me there is no god


It should have been emphasized as a prescriptive truth only for mosaic israel in terms of recognition for worship, that for mosaic israel there is no god beside god almighty they should recognize neither god knew any for them to worship. It should have been this way:

Is there a God beside me for israel? yea, there is no God; I know not any for israel to worship…


Beside me there is no god for israel to worship….


  • There is one god and none else from whom are all things.

True. There is only one god from whom are all things.

1 Corinthians 8:6
[6]But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Therefore when it say:

Beside me there is no god


I am god there is none else

It should have been:

…beside me there is no god from whom are all things…

…i am god there is none else from whom are all things…


With this ambiguity, which one is the correct interpretation?

A. There is one god and none else in the general scope.

B. There is one god and none else for israel.

C. There is one god and none else from whom are all things.

Which one?

Note: Nothing in these verses emphasized one true god in the general scope thus the ambiguity.

If you choose letter B or C then there is room for other gods like Jesus to be considered as true god, right?

It say:

Deuteronomy 4:39

[39]Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.

Nothing in this verse emphasized one true god in the general scope either seeing Jesus divinity as expressed in many verses such as:

JOHN 1:18

No man hath seen god at any time THE ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD…

It could be explained in other ways like option B and C. That is if we consider context and logic.

Lets go to the next point:

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Which is right?

A. The only true god in the general scope. (Is his being the only one in the general scope?)

B. The only true god in heaven as jesus was on earth.

Truly, god the father was the only true god in heaven as hinted by jesus prayer:

…our father who art in heaven…

During these times, jesus as true god was on earth (1John5:20).


1 Corinthians 8:6

[6]But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Which is right?

A. One god in the general scope.

B. One god from whom are all things. Meaning, with other gods existing he is the only god from whom are all things.

1 Timothy 2:5

[5]For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Which is right?

A. One god in the general scope.

B. One god to whom jesus mediates with man. Meaning, with other gods existing he is the only god to whom jesus mediates with man.

These verses are ambiguous. It didnt say for certain that there is one true god in the general scope.

Note: Nothing in these verses emphasized one true god in the general scope thus the ambiguity.

So it could be explained in other ways. Being ambiguous, the right interpretation should be as preferably, the ones contextual with verses that proclaimed Jesus as true god.


Joe Ventilacion, a Greek scholar and debater of the religious group notorious with its allotted name Iglesia ni Manalo has exuberantly employed the concept that the verbo or word in john 1:1 cannot be derivative of a god as a living entity. It is only an idea having no cognitive abilities but merely a thought, a plan, an inanimate imagination.

But does it have any fraction of reality in it? They quoted a supplemental verse:

1 Peter 1:19-20

[19]But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

[20]Who verily was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

As you can see, so as they misconstrue context, they said god has foreknown jesus, therefore god knew beforehand that jesus the messiah who he is and how he would be as man, was already determined before his existence thus he was merely a thought, an inanimate figure, an idea.

But wait, was the thing foreknown not existing at hand while his future as redeemer was foreseen?

It has to answer this question by a verse if not, nothing confirmatory would ever be produced from it. In fact, when jesus was the word, he was a cognitive and living entity. He was not a mere idea. And true, god foreknown him as a redeemer, and yet was existing at hand during pre-incarnation time. It doesnt mean to say, he has foreknown an inexistent entity. No. Jesus was existent while god has foreknown his future.

Bec if he was a mere idea, could he have emptied himself so as Philippians 2:6-7 has stated?

Philippians 2:6-7

[6]Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

[7]But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:


If we look it up in greek, it would be: kenoo heauteau kenoo meaning, it is: emptied himself and abased

To make things in right perspective, let us consult context. Firstly, it say, jesus in his pre-incarnation state was in the form of god and equal with god. Next event was, he emptied himself and abased himself. Afterwards he incarnated. So as you can see, before becoming man, he emptied himself and abased himself. So obviously, during the emptyiing of himself he was already the verbo or the word. So the question would be, if the verbo or word is mere idea, how could he have possibly emptied himself and abased himself then seeing how he was inexistent still?

It cannot possibly be, so the only resolution to it is, the verbo or word was not a mere idea but a living entity.


Malachi 3:10 was saying blessings would come down from windows of heaven. It cannot be literal, right? As we cannot see wealth for example falling down from the sky. It could only be a figure of speech.

Whereas John 6:38 having Jesus said, i came down from heaven is undeniably literal. It is corroborative of John 1:1-2:

John 1:1-2

[1]In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

[2]The same was in the beginning with God.

To be in the beginning with god denotes preexistence obviously as the word. They might say, that word is in that state of being an idea of god thus it was not an entity.

But how could that be so seeing he is the begotten god:

JOHN 1:18 “THE ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD” or monogenes theos in the early manuscripts of John like p66, p75, codex sinaiticus, syriac peshitta etc…

The word being the begotten god is obviously an entity as being god is tantamount to being a thinking talking being.

John 1:1-2,18

[18]No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten God, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

For the begotten god to have declared the father implies that he is a thinking talking being, and for the begotten god to be the word (the word was god; the only begotten god,these could be the same god, right?) suggests that the word was an entity and not mere idea.

Therefore when it say:
In the beginning with god

It logically means preexistence that as corroborating John 6:38 “i came down from heaven” as indeed preexistence.


PHIL 2:6 who being in the “morphe” of god, thought it not robbery to be equal with god, but made himself of no reputation and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men..

As we can see, before he took upon him the form of man, he was already in the “morphe” of god.

“Morphe” is shape as defined in the strongs numbers.

Meaning, Jesus was already in the shape of god before he become man. Having a shape, suggests it is not a mere idea, as an idea is without shape. Jesus as the word, has the shape of god.

It suggests, that God too has a shape, and Jesus having the shape of god implies that they, both, have the same shape, same bodily constitution.


BEC god`s bodily constitution, in every aspect, is the shape of god. If god has a brain or blood cells, the shape of these is also the same with Jesus, same way, with all aspect of god`s constitution therefore Jesus having that shape means that Jesus has equal bodily constitution as god.

God is a spirit therefore his shape and bodily constitution is spirit

Jesus having the shape of god, means he has the shape of the spirit who is god. Therefore jesus as the word, was a spirit.



They are different. Thus the word is not mere idea.They might argue and say, shape of god is the image of god which is figuratively speaking of righteousness though unbiblical, there is no proof that shape is synonymous to image.

WHAT JOE DID WAS DISCARD MORPHE AS SHAPE, AND REPLACED IT WITH FORM AND QUOTES A DICTIONARY that MORPHE (FORM) is synonymous to eikon (image) thus making MORPHE which is supposed to be shape as FORM or image, thus putting it as a figurative form, which form is image, which is interpreted as righteousness.

The question is,


Joe assumed god has no shape BEC he is a spirit thus it has no physical shape.



Spirits has shape therefore as suggested by MORPHE ( shape.)

Joe said:

“Inyong narinig ang tinig ngunit wala kayong nakitang anyo,”

Anyo o form yan, meaning, spirits have no form. In what sense?



the earth was made but yet FORMLESS.


as we can see, things that have form could be considered without form In what sense? THE EARTH has MASS but no form. What does it mean? Logically, it has not yet the intended form, the god planned form…But it has its initial form….bec it has mass. THE one that Israel HEARD but could not see his form Was an angel, A spirit. It has his form an invisible form but has not manifested in visible form

Why is that?

BEC of the concept that, something with form sometimes is considered as FORMLESS or without form. Thus conclusively, we cannot say, that spirits has no literal form. BEC in reality, god has MORPHE or shape.

If morphe is shape, then it DISPROVES Joe’s claim that PHIL 2:6 speaks of FORM or image of god which is RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Why do we believe MORPHE is shape?

BEC Jesus as word was already a thinking talking being.


Which is the ME and which is the body? Obviously, they are distinct entities. ME is logically the word and he was talking therefore a cognitive entity. Some say that prepared human body was mary as a conception host for Jesus. Does it matter? When the the one coming from heaven was cognitive and talking.


It was the one from heaven that talked.


It was not the human body bec it was not the one that came from heaven. If the word was a thinking, talking being, then he is a person, and being BEGOTTEN by god means literally born in the manner wherein a spirit gives birth to a spirit, thus having the same nature, implies they have both the same MORPHE (shape).


Revelation 19:12-13
[12]His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
[13]And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

The verbo is a name having a cognitive person.

…that no man knew, but he himself…

So how come a cognitive person is an idea or an inanimate figure?

Lastly, Jesus was the son of god before he came into the world.

1 John 4:9

[9]In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

He was sent from heaven.

John 6:38

[38]For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

Jesus follows the will of god and for him to come to earth is the will of god meaning, he was sent. Therefore the process of sending begins from heaven and who did god sent?

The only begotten son.

…God sent his only begotten Son into the world…

Therefore even before he came into earth he was already the only begotten son. Meaning, he was already a son of god in heaven.

The problem is how INC view the verbo as mere idea so the question would be:


You answer.


Contention between religion in terms of the deity of Christ is quite irresolute as both sides interject contradictory beliefs that are rather incompatible. With the discovery of some early manuscripts like P66 and P75 makes a hopeful turn for the proponents of the deity of christ. It quotes John 1:18 respectively:

Monogenes Theos

Ho monogenes theos

There is one extant version that translated it this way:

New American Standard Bible

No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

And a footnote from NKJV has this to say:

John 1:18 New King James Version (NKJV)

18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten [a]Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.


John 1:18 NU God

The footnote explicitly present an alternative translation for (a) son. It is god. Therefore, clearly stating the only begotten god.

Some scholars confirmed that the source of these translations are found in more than 6 manuscripts and ho monogenes theos in 3 reliable manuscripts. It say:

The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ Ë1,13 Ï lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. Ì75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in Ì66א* B C* L pc.

– with Lagrange, Barrett, Boismard, and others – to accept ‘God’s chosen one’ as original.”

It say, consider the highlighted part, p75, 1 and 33 have ho monogenes theos. And the non articled monogenes theos in p66. B. C and L.

Dan Wallace has this to say:

At the risk of sounding repetitive, θεός shows up again outside the Alexandrian tradition (e.g., early Latin Fathers in the Gospels are Western witnesses)76 with relatively strong textual weight (per Ehrman’s argument). (ibid.)

In sum, externally, both readings enjoy wide geographical distribution, even though υἱός is relatively stronger in non-Alexandrian forms of text. Both readings co-existed in the second century, although weightier MSS support θεός. As a whole, then, I believe θεός is more probable due to the quality, antiquity, and transmissional history of the witnesses listed above. (ibid.)

In retrospect, I conclude thatμονογενὴς θεός is the best reading given all the evidence we have internally and externally. As a result, it is highly probable that the text of John 1.18 calls Jesus θεός. (ibid.)

Who is Dan Wallace?

Daniel Baird Wallace is an American professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. He is also the founder and executive director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, the purpose of which is digitizing all known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament via digital…

Some scholars say this:

“The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult.”

The non-articled monogenes theos it say is a much harder reading. Internal evidence though suggests that missing words such as preposition and conjunction is a reality in the bible such as COL 1:15. It states: firstborn of every creature. There is no greek counterpart for the preposition of. It was personally supplied by translators so on that note a missing article cannot be remote and still its acceptable. Therefore monogenes theos without the article is acceptable.

On the contrary Dan Wallace opposed the article by saying:

Internally (and syntactically), the absence of the article does not necessarily deny the full deity of Jesus. “Neither in LXX Greek nor in secular Greek,” Harris explains, “is a firm or a fine distinction drawn between the articular and the anarthrous θεός. This judgment is confirmed, as far as Hellenistic Greek writings contemporaneous with the NT are concerned, by Meecham, who cites specific examples from the Epistle to Diognetus.”55 More specifically, “The term θεός appears in some form 83 times. Of these 63 are articular and 20 anarthrous. Still, it is highly improbable that the Fourth Evangelist intends any consistent distinction to be drawn between θεόςand ὁ θεός.”

Still if non articled monogenes theos is unreliable, we have manuscripts of articled monogenes theos such as:

ὁ μονογενὴς θεός

P75 a1 D 33 copsa, bo Basil1/2Clement2/3 Clementfrom Theodotus 1/2 Cyril2/4Epiphanius Eusebius3/7Gregory-Nyssa Origengr 2/4Serapion1/2

Having all these, how can it confirm the reliability of monogenes theos?

Some scholars say its a false reading. Dan Wallace calls it “best reading” therefore its irresolute.

Having that irresolute nature, how shall you negate it if we use it as basis of faith? Bec what if its authentic scripture then it magnifies christ as a true deity.